At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[davidwaples]

So is paint color now on their list of issues to be documented? Is there any reasonable hope that this issue gets resolved?
Dave

[amdaylight]

Greetings,

On a different topic from "what color was the ship" I was wondering where were the navigation / running lights lights on the USS Arizona? The reason is that I planning to RC the Trumpeter Arizona and my model boat club holds night floats. So I will at least need the port, starboard and, mast lights and the stern lights. On the sight http://www.pastfoundation.org/Arizona/index.htm they show a Christmas card with the Arizona on the front showing the running lights plus some on the fighting top/yard arms that I am not familiar with. Were the three on the fighting top and the two on the yard arms lights that were used for communication with other battle ships when fighting at night? Does any one know what kind of lighting would have been on the main deck where the (what I think were 5" guns") barbettes / casements were, were these open or did they have spay shields that were installed when the ship was at sea and not fighting? The next question is would there have been red light visible from the fighting tops, bridge and other such areas? In peace time did they blacken the ship or would light be visible from the port holes? If not then I will not have to drill out all of those portholes or dead lights as they were also know as.

When these style of battle ships were under way did the 5" guns face towards the bow and stern or did they face out to the side? Did they have spray shields to keep water out of that space?

I still have not decided what color I am going to paint mine yet, on day blue the next day light gray over dark gray and then every now and then the great white fleet look (tongue in cheek). I am thinking that since I am going to RC this monster the light gray over dark gray would be the most appropriate for August 1941.

On another note regarding color, has any determined what color the aircraft were in the period say August 1941?

Thanks in advance for any help on these questions.
Andre

[dsk]

Well, as of last night I began working on a 1/700 Arizona from Hobby Boss as a prelude to my 1/200 Trumpeter build. I figured it'd be a great test subject to put together and experiment with paint colors and such before using them on the Big Boy. Unfortuantely I'm really surprised by how many issues this kit has. While it's much more detailed than the old 1/720 Revell kit, the dimensions are all wrong. Aside from being too broad in the beam and having a ridiculously flat-bottomed hull, the most visible issue is the fact that turrets 1 and 2 are spaced way too far apart. Since this is the same kit as the Mini Hobbies the following image taken from Timothy Dike's online review demonstrates what I'm talking about:



It looks to me like the boat deck is too short allowing turret #2 and the superstructure to sit too far aft. There are also other, albeit minor (by comparison) issues, so I'd definitely not recommend this kit to anyone but a 10 year-old building their first model, unless you like to kit-bash or buy cheap models just for salvageable parts. For 1/700 scale definitely get the Dragon kit instead.

Looks like I'm just going to quickly build this one, play with paint colors until I'm satisfied, then take it out to the nearby pond and do a reinactment of Operation Crossroads using an A-bomb sized rock.

[Sten Ekedahl]

I notice that it has similar problems as the 1/350 kit. The deck contours are assymetric, port and starboard sides are different. Compare the edges of the deck above the original rear casemates. The radius of the curves differ from side to side. Not to mention the wrong number of (raised!?! ) portholes, most of them in the wrong positon.

[dsk]

I notice that it has similar problems as the 1/350 kit. The deck contours are assymetric, port and starboard sides are different. Compare the edges of the deck above the original rear casemates. The radius of the curves differ from side to side. Not to mention the wrong number of (raised!?! ) portholes, most of them in the wrong positon.

No, I didn't notice the assymetrical problems, but fortunately they are slight. But the too-short boat deck causing the #2 turret and superstructure to sit further aft is really bad. I saw a couple of other folks' builds using this kit in the gallery, but couldn't quite place what looked odd about them. I figured maybe it was just a screwy camera angle or something, but now that I have the kit open and out in front of me I can see what was wrong. And it's not something that's really possible or practical to fix, either.

Oh well. A cheap kit is a cheap kit. Good for practicing how to use hobby filler and scratchbuilding without having invested too much in something you don't want to screw up and have to throw away.

[Sten Ekedahl]

I notice that it has similar problems as the 1/350 kit. The deck contours are assymetric, port and starboard sides are different. Compare the edges of the deck above the original rear casemates. The radius of the curves differ from side to side. Not to mention the wrong number of (raised!?! ) portholes, most of them in the wrong positon.

No, I didn't notice the assymetrical problems, but fortunately they are slight. But the too-short boat deck causing the #2 turret and superstructure to sit further aft is really bad.

I haven't mentioned it in my WIP Arizona thread, but in fact the 1/350 kit has the same error too - among several dozen others. This throws the positioning of all fittings on the 02 level (boat deck), conning tower, superstructure, funnel, deckhouses, hatches, etc. off, and everything has to be a compromise. Leads me to believe that all of these kits can trace their origins back to that Revell monster from the 1950's.

[dsk]

I haven't had the 1/426 Revell since I was a child, but I know at least their 1/720 kit is correct in that regard. Of course that one was a crude kit all around, with next to no detail and a few dimensional problems of its own. But you're right, a close inspection of some of these kits shows how many of them are simply scaled up or down versions of another kit, and the errors are simply transfered over.

[Dick J]

Leads me to believe that all of these kits can trace their origins back to that Revell monster from the 1950's.

When the 1/700 kit first came out, one of the reviewers indicated that the boat deck on this kit was the same size and shape as the one on the slightly underscale 1/720 Revell kit. If so, that is what moved turret II back so far.

[Bondoman]

I haven't mentioned it in my WIP Arizona thread, but in fact the 1/350 kit has the same error too - among several dozen others. This throws the positioning of all fittings on the 02 level (boat deck), conning tower, superstructure, funnel, deckhouses, hatches, etc. off, and everything has to be a compromise. Leads me to believe that all of these kits can trace their origins back to that Revell monster from the 1950's.

Wouldn't that be fixable (certainly with difficulty) with an accurate drawing and a rebuilt boat deck? I'd like to know, as I plan to crack into my Hobby Boss version next spring.

[dsk]

When the 1/700 kit first came out, one of the reviewers indicated that the boat deck on this kit was the same size and shape as the one on the slightly underscale 1/720 Revell kit. If so, that is what moved turret II back so far.

I think you may be on to something. Putting my 1/720 Revell next to the 1/700 HB both boat decks are roughly the same length. Some of the detail is identical as well, although they mate to the casemate bulkheads differently. And lo and behold! The curvatures at the stern above the old rear casemates are also slightly different each side, and both have a greater curve on the port side. While there are plenty of differences between the kits, it appears you are right that the 1/720 Revell was used for some of the dimensions, and when they enlarged it to 1/700 scale somebody forgot to enlarge the boat deck as well.

[dsk]

Wouldn't that be fixable (certainly with difficulty) with an accurate drawing and a rebuilt boat deck? I'd like to know, as I plan to crack into my Hobby Boss version next spring.

It's only plastic, so technically speaking anything is possible. But are you willing to put that much effort into a $10 kit?

[Sten Ekedahl]

Wouldn't that be fixable (certainly with difficulty) with an accurate drawing and a rebuilt boat deck? I'd like to know, as I plan to crack into my Hobby Boss version next spring.

I did actually consider doing that in the beginning, but decided not to because of all the expected work involved. However with hindsight I regret I didn't. Since I have completely rebuilt the 01 level (whith the casemate guns) and everything on the 02 level ("boat deck"), just moving the #2 turret base forward a bit wouldn't have been so difficult after all. See my WIP Arizona thread.

[Sten Ekedahl]

Wouldn't that be fixable (certainly with difficulty) with an accurate drawing and a rebuilt boat deck? I'd like to know, as I plan to crack into my Hobby Boss version next spring.

It's only plastic, so technically speaking anything is possible. But are you willing to put that much effort into a $10 kit?

Yea, cheap kit - but references, loads of PC/rod/strips, all the resin parts, the PE sets, all the filler and sanding sticks needed will add up to about 10(!) times the cost of the actual kit! "Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt!"

[Bondoman]

It's only plastic, so technically speaking anything is possible. But are you willing to put that much effort into a $10 kit?

Yea, cheap kit - but references, loads of PC/rod/strips, all the resin parts, the PE sets, all the filler and sanding sticks needed will add up to about 10(!) times the cost of the actual kit! "Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt!"

I have the 1/350 Banner/ Hobby Boss kit which cost me about $ 40.00. Still not very expensive, but I would like to make that revision at least. I haven't read back through the thread yet, but I'll tackle the change as soon as I start next year. (Have to finish the Borodino).

[dsk]

I did actually consider doing that in the beginning, but decided not to because of all the expected work involved. However with hindsight I regret I didn't. Since I have completely rebuilt the 01 level (whith the casemate guns) and everything on the 02 level ("boat deck"), just moving the #2 turret base forward a bit wouldn't have been so difficult after all. See my WIP Arizona thread.

I just took a look at your WIP thread for the first time, and all I can say is "WOW". I really look forward to seeing that baby when she's all done.

However I did notice that the turret #2 location on your 1/350 isn't as bad as on the 1/700 kit. On mine there is *almost* enough room to fit another barbette between the forward turrets!

[Bondoman]

I did actually consider doing that in the beginning, but decided not to because of all the expected work involved. However with hindsight I regret I didn't. Since I have completely rebuilt the 01 level (whith the casemate guns) and everything on the 02 level ("boat deck"), just moving the #2 turret base forward a bit wouldn't have been so difficult after all. See my WIP Arizona thread.

I just took a look at your WIP thread for the first time, and all I can say is "WOW". I really look forward to seeing that baby when she's all done.

:

What he said! Is there a good source of info for a back date model? Like a build log? I will check Steelnavy.

[dsk]

Yea, cheap kit - but references, loads of PC/rod/strips, all the resin parts, the PE sets, all the filler and sanding sticks needed will add up to about 10(!) times the cost of the actual kit! "Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt!"

I've noticed there seem to be three levels of ship modelers:

Basic: Simply buys a kit, paints it and glues it together. Couldn't care less what other people think of the end result.

Intermediate: Buys a kit, tries to make it look more authentic by researching paint colors, fixes minor accuracy issues if it's in the realm of their ability, buys PE and adds it to the model to make it look more realistic. Will show it to friends and family, but probably wouldn't ever show it to an advanced modeler.

Advanced: The hardcore modeler who is not only experienced in all aspects of modeling, but is obsessed with creating a museum-quality piece and will go to great lengths to correct flaws in the basic kit, even rebuilding the whole thing from scratch if necessary. They do it either to win awards at local shows, for clients, or for their own personal satisfaction.

You my friend are definitely in the advanced category, even if it's your first ship build. I'm bottom-level intermediate and will probably never be advanced. I have neither the skills nor the patience.

[Sten Ekedahl]

Advanced: The hardcore modeler who is not only experienced in all aspects of modeling, but is obsessed with creating a museum-quality piece and will go to great lengths to correct flaws in the basic kit, even rebuilding the whole thing from scratch if necessary. They do it either to win awards at local shows, for clients, or for their own personal satisfaction.

You my friend are definitely in the advanced category, even if it's your first ship build. I'm bottom-level intermediate and will probably never be advanced. I have neither the skills nor the patience.

Yes I do it for my own personal satisfaction. I've never been a pot hunter at shows. But through 50 years of modeling I have (unfortunately?) developed the dreaded disease AMS - Advanced Modelers Syndrome. That means a compulsary, unconditional (well, almost) ambition for accuracy. It can often be very counterproductive; quite often a build stalls just because you can't find what a certain detail exactly looked like, or you are missing references of a specific feature. It is very frustrating at times, but when you finally succeed, you get a very great satisfaction out of it. It's like solving a giant puzzle - frustrating but rewarding in the end. That why I, dispite all the frustrations at times, enjoy doing it after all.

There is a very well known Swedish poem written by female author, Karin Boye, about 70 years ago. At first it appears to be about travelling, but in reality it is about life. And that the most important is not the goal in life, but to enjoy living life. That is also the way I view my modeling. The finished model is not the most important, it is the process of building it to the best of my ability (and gaining even more experience for my next model) that is.
The poem goes someting like this in my humble attempt to litterally translate it into English:

A day of satisfaction, is never the greatest day.
The best day is a day of thirst.
There is certainly a goal and meaning for our travel
- but it is the journey that makes it worth it.
The best goal is a nightlong rest,
where a fire is lit and bread hastily shared.
In places where you sleep only once,
sleep will be sound and dreams filled with songs.
Break up, break up! A new day arises.
Endless is our great adventure.

As a curious side note: The coach for the Swedish national soccer team during the 1994 World Cup in USA, recited this poem to his players in the locker room, just before the bronze match, to motivate them. They won the match!

[dsk]

There is a very well known Swedish poem written by female author, Karin Boye, about 70 years ago. At first it appears to be about travelling, but in reality it is about life. And that the most important is not the goal in life, but to enjoy living life. That is also the way I view my modeling. The finished model is not the most important, it is the process of building it to the best of my ability (and gaining even more experience for my next model) that is.

Thus the reason why I'm probably not a good prospect for becoming an advanced modeler. When I'm building I'm always getting that impatient feeling to finish the project, or at least advance to a stage where it's finally starting to look like something. Then I finally get finished, and I start wishing I had slowed down a little and detailed it better because I miss not working on it any longer.

Anyway, back to the Arizona. I've got my little Hobby Boss "guinea pig" half-finished already (I'm not bothering with any PE or detailing, just a quick "paint n' glue" worthy of a basic modeler). However I'm really liking how it looks painted in dark grey and am increasingly tempted to finish off the 1/200 Trumpeter kit with the same scheme.

[Sten Ekedahl]

Is there a good source of info for a back date model? Like a build log? I will check Steelnavy.

If you mean backdating her to pre-1930, I don't know of any good source. But considering the extent of the mid-life update 1930-31, we are talking about two completely different looking ships - both the hull, and everything apart from the main turrets, above the deck, changed a lot. I think converting the present 1/350 kit to an early Arizona may possily be more involved than actually starting from scratch and using the odd parts from the kit.